thanks for your comments, weaken questions are my weakest type. I have tried that method and seen success. Thanks.
I seem to be struggling with timing on LR. I did a few untimed LR sections from the older lsats and I always get max 2 wrong. My scores drop significantly when timed. Not only do I rarely finish the section, but I am only getting 14-17 right. I feel this is whats holding me back from a high 150s/low 160s score that I am aiming for. I don't know what to do to improve this. Any help would be significant in my studies. Thanks.
IMO, you have to partially block out the time aspect. What I mean by this is internally you should know how much time you have to spend on a question, but don't let it inhibit your problem solving ability. This was my problem. You have to get a sense of when you're spending too much time on a problem, cut your losses, and move on.
Someone please let me know if this is a correct method of reasoning in doing this question.
When I did this question, I immediately notice the gap between "direct conscious control" in the premise and its lack in the conclusion. That allowed me to zone in on answer choices B and D.
I chose D incorrectly, but I also noticed something. D is purely conditional language whereas the correct answer B is using less absolute language that is in line with the conclusion e.g Conclusion: "more likely,"
Answer choice "difficult."
Yeah, I missed the point about the lithium also. Why it cannot consume it is irrelevant, but implying that it cannot be consume means its just sitting there, thereby having it.
To your first point, answer choice C starts with No, so you must negate the necessary.
the sufficient is: a celestial object has no lithium in its atmosphere
IS
necessary: a brown dwarf
BD -> L
Tough question.
I initially changed this answer from C to A mid question during the set and like many of you I was confused with the wording and what not. What was helpful was being able to see that the author is against the opinions of "many artists," shown in first line: artists MISTAKENLY, and the ironic waste part in the last sentence. When that thought occurred to me, I realized that was C a poor choice.
The way I internalized this question was:
Conscious awareness is NOT necessary for complex goal oriented behavior
GOB → /C
Merely establishing nonhuman animals are intelligent is NOT sufficient to establish they have consciousness
/I → C
Argument must assume GOB→I
Which is answer choice A.
Negating A: GOB→/I destroys the logical chain
I didnt know why i got this question right it just sounded good.
What can destroy you on this question is if you focus on the WITHOUT and confuse it as a logical indicator. The without is just negating Consciousness, and is not the logical indicator.